I don’t think they’re wrong in saying Epicureanism lacks selflessness, even if they’re behaving a bit disingenuously. Epicurus (and many of his contemporaries) seem to be concerned primarily with how the comfortable might best live and conduct themselves, without really concerning themselves greatly with the condition of those who might not be reading philosophical texts. Epicurus would counsel that it’s better to be a wise man who delights in simple pleasures than a rich one enjoying rich pleasures, because rich pleasures will not always be available and come with downsides like miserliness and jealousy - but that doesn’t really address the poor man who doesn’t have enough to live on, or is subject to the slings and arrows of a callous or even malicious society.
Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.
HippyxViking t1_j9g0vh0 wrote
Reply to comment by DrDigitalRectalExam in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak
I don’t think they’re wrong in saying Epicureanism lacks selflessness, even if they’re behaving a bit disingenuously. Epicurus (and many of his contemporaries) seem to be concerned primarily with how the comfortable might best live and conduct themselves, without really concerning themselves greatly with the condition of those who might not be reading philosophical texts. Epicurus would counsel that it’s better to be a wise man who delights in simple pleasures than a rich one enjoying rich pleasures, because rich pleasures will not always be available and come with downsides like miserliness and jealousy - but that doesn’t really address the poor man who doesn’t have enough to live on, or is subject to the slings and arrows of a callous or even malicious society.
Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.